This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Roughly two weeks ago, the popular e-book lending site LendInk was taken offline thanks to a group of terrified authors who couldn’t be bothered to read the fine print. LendInk was a website dedicated to helping book lovers lend books to each other through features implemented by Amazon and Barnes & Noble. The site’s only purpose was to serve as a front end — it hosted no e-book files, linked no torrents, and never directed users to a file locker.

All LendInk did was bring readers together under terms the content creators had previously agreed to, even if they didn’t bother to read the fine print or understand how their work was being used. Amazon’s lending terms preserve the limitations of physicality; books can be lent once, for 14 days, and the original owner cannot read the text during the duration of the loan. In the wake of this triple-facepalm episode, a number of authors have apologized for their role in destroying LendInk. The fact that the pile-on happened at all, however, speaks to a larger problem: A huge number of authors don’t understand digital distribution, current copyright law, or the Terms and Conditions they signed in order to publish their own work. They’re terrified of piracy, despite having only a minimal understanding of what piracy actually is.

In a now-deleted post, blogger Shawn Lamb wrote “I was made aware of a pirate site illegally displaying all my e-books, Kindle and Nook, for unlimited borrowing… The only way to have our books on their site was through piracy. Readers were also upset, for such sites reflect badly upon honest people who want to support authors. A course of action was set, and an unrelenting broadside of determined authors and readers scuttled the pirate in less than 12 hours.” Shawn goes on to claim that the website she meant for everyone to attack was LendLnk.com, not LendInk.com — but since LendLnk.com didn’t exist until August 6, claiming otherwise is nothing but a poorly designed CYA maneuver against people with a superior understanding of technology.

Part of the problem is that it’s apparently possible for book distributors to re-enable lending, even if the author sets the “Do Not Lend” flag themselves and isn’t charging a high enough royalty to be automatically locked into the Available to Lend category. Part of it, however, is linked to the way publishers and official author organizations, like the Authors Guild, have treated emerging digital technologies.

Various posts at the AG website describe Amazon’s “predatory ways,” and claim that its actions are “undermining the ecosystem on which book publishers and most new authors depend.” Publishers are outraged at the idea that the DOJ might find them guilty of collusion with Apple. Barnes and Noble is the favored child; Google Books, a caricatured villain. Virtually every story at the Authors Guild website is a treatise on how the government, Amazon, and Google want to destroy publishers and writers.

The AG clearly doesn’t speak for all authors, but the tone and nature of its statements perfectly match the firestorm that engulfed LendInk. Authors defiantly held forth on their anti-piracy efforts, with one person writing that LendInk was “in breech [sic?] of copyright and deserved to be shut down. Am I proud they have been shut down? Am I proud to have stood up for my legal rights as author? You betcha!”

This isn’t an isolated incident or one-off event. The writers who stormed LendInk’s digital Bastille to protect their imaginary rights are responsible for their actions, but publishers and the Authors Guild have done everything they possibly could to paint Google, Amazon, and online distribution as attempts to destroy authors and authors’ communities. It’s not enough to say that the writers should have read the relevant FAQ — we need to ask the question of why so many people jumped to the conclusion that their rights were under attack.

Does the Authors Guild care about writers? Absolutely — just as much as the RIAA cares about musicians. The entire e-book issue is a war over who should have the final say in product pricing, distribution, and licensing. Attacking websites doing legal things may slow the growth of e-books, but it won’t stop it. The damage to individual writers, however, could be enormous — already several sites have targeted specific authors for boycotts thanks to their prominent role as witch hunters in the LendInk fiasco.

It’s time for publishers and the Authors Guild to stop spreading FUD and start teaching reality. The knee-jerk reactions that created this mess have damaged the lives of real people. Google, Amazon, and other companies aren’t the enemy, and painting them in a consistently negative light only increases the chance that this sorry episode will repeat itself.

Sadly, what passes for self publishing in a lot of cases these days is described by your remark. Between the LendInk fiasco, and sloppy work, some “authors” are heralded as foolish representatives for the rest of us. Thankfully this isn’t entirely the case, but damn. It is getting harder and harder to legitimize self publishing with issues like this popping up here and there.

mori bund

First the music industry, then the film industry, now the publishing industry.

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
(Albert Einstein)

ah-hah! I see your Einstein quote, and raise you one of my own personal favourites:
“Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

The larger writers typically don’t seem to care much about this sort of thing. Even if someone initially got a copy for free (pirating, borrowing, etc.), there’s a chance that person will like it enough to buy other works… or to recommend it to friends…

Compare that to what we see with these small no-name authors… desperately clawing and scratching for the few scraps of royalties they think are being stolen from them.

“Shawn goes on to claim that the website he meant for everyone to attack…”
Shawn Lamb is a _her_, not a he.

fish sauce

I lack the words to express the anger and frustration of how morbidly stupid people are.Not educating themselves before opening their mouth.

How dare they open their filthy mouths to regurgitate something as if truth and destroy progress like this.

These authors should be hunted down, put in jail and fined for damaging progress for all humans.

Yes, i think the music and movie companies should be fined and put in jail too.

Preventing development and progress should be as illegal and unacceptable as preventing a cure for cancer.
(Pharmaceutical companies could stand to make millions for years to come if they started to prevent research into a cure for cancer. From selling cancer slowing medications)

Joel Hruska

Ummm…yeah, as the author of the article, I’ve really got to disagree with you on that.

Yes, this was profoundly stupid. Yes, a lot of these people didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot — they shot themselves with a pistol, switched to a shotgun, and blew their own legs off.

But put in jail? No.

Depriving someone of their freedom doesn’t just punish them, it punishes their families, the economic status of those families, and the authors themselves.

That might give you a vindictive sense of pleasure, but it wouldn’t actually fix the problem. The problem here is that a large number of people who are participating in the new digital economy have no idea what it means for them and their books. The sources of information they might turn to, like the Authors Guild, spew bile, fear, and propaganda.

If a mob burns your house down, you don’t burn 500 other houses to solve the problem.

Tom Maddox

Jail is definitely not warrented but I do find myself wishing that those who filed DMCA notices would be fined or have a counter complaint issued against them.

Stephen L. Wilson

If you haven’t seen, there is a list. The authors on the list are now battling one star reviews and clogged emails, from what I understand. Have a look at the link to A.b. Dada’s list at my blog: http://nopirates.blogspot.com. Believe me, they aren’t getting away without feeling some sting.

fish sauce

“Depriving someone of their freedom doesn’t just punish them, it punishes their families, the economic status of those families, and the authors themselves. “

That thinking doesn’t work. As with criminals (that also got families) they did it to themselves.

It is not about ‘vindictive sense of pleasure’. Although i must admit, after the damage those DMCA trolls and the morbidly stupid groups that follows them have done, it would give me great pleasure in seeing them punished severely.

It would be like reading the newspaper about that child molester that were in my neighborhood. “Child molester castrated and killed last night while trying to abduct another child”

It is about putting your foot down and making it clear that hindering progress whether it is technological, scientific, etc is not acceptable and you will be punished if you try. No but’s.

fish sauce

“If a mob burns your house down, you don’t burn 500 other houses to solve the problem.”

Exactly how does this relate to my comment ?
It doesn’t make sense at all.

brekinapez

My favorite part is the author who can’t spell “breach”. Nothing beats being qualified for your field of endeavor.

Tessa

In fairness, book publishers hire copy editors to deal with spelling mistakes. Being qualified for writing books professionally involves being able to write things that people will pay to read, not an absence of typographical and grammatical errors.

brekinapez

My personal experience with my wife trying to get some books published was the publishers wanted the manuscripts proofed as well as possible before submission so they could concentrate on the meat of the matter.

My opinion is that folks who are poor at spelling and grammar aren’t very good story tellers as well.

GatzLoc

nope, what about an il-literate?

m0r1arty

Can ‘The Queen’ sue all these guys for writing in her language without due compensation?

I guess the authors will go burn down all the public libraries next since they lend books too. (Both physical and virtual)

Joel Hruska

Ty,

MacMillian publishing already restricts the e-books it sells libraries to 26 checkouts. Every 26 checkouts, you have to buy another copy.

Ty Smith

I know Ebooks at libraries are not unlimited…My point was if the “Authors” went after every one who did what what LendLnk was doing they should start with the Number One Lenders The Public Library System.

And 26 checkouts is way over the 1 to 1 lending that made the “Authors” all hot and heavy too.

So if I buy a book, it becomes mine. Yet I cannot lend it out without the Authors permission, bollox to that it shouldent matter if its a ebook or not. I have the right to lend that book to whom I wish.

Marrach

To be fair and stay in the middle ground, you are correct. On the side, attributable to Ignorance of the State of the Technology– a lot of Authors are afraid of the never-ending wave of copy-innovation. In short– what Authors (The Good, the So-so & the Bad) are afraid of is the possibility of as yet unknown tool that could rip an ebook into an unpaid copy. Then all it takes is one step to Pirate Bay and the race is on for everyone to get it for Free.
Even for the Good Professional Authors, that’s a Lose-Lose scenario because your work is already Lost.

True– ripping an ebook is probably more work than it’s worth effort-wise, but we all know there’s no shortage of people who will expend a LOT of effort just get something for Free.

This is really sad, copyright law can be a real shame. It’s tricky legislation sometimes. The same thing happened to some musicians when Napster was around. I seem to recall a member of Metallica becoming quite the unpopular figure after his enthusiastic citing of copyright law

panner

It seems most of these comments are from gifted readers who lack the talent to publish anything worthwhile themselves. Perhaps it’s jealously that motivates some readers to vilify authors who believe they have the right to earn income from their labor.

Authors may spend years developing their ideas and producing the content for a book and only “earn” income after a book is published and sold. Individual sales must be measured against the time and effort needed to produce the work. Like any “worker” authors would like fair compensation for their work – successful authors making a higher “hourly” wage.

It’s a common misconception that when you buy a book – it belongs to you. While the download file or physical paper the book is made of may be “owned”; the words, thoughts and ideas contained in the book remain the property of the author (are copyrighted).

When an author’s works are published and sold to a reader. That reader has purchased the right to read, study, learn, understand the authors thoughts and ideas. When readers share that content (including lending a physical paper book) with anyone else they are breaking a covenant with the author and breaking copyright laws.

Joel Hruska

When readers share that content (including lending a physical paper book) with anyone else they are breaking a covenant with the author and breaking copyright laws.

No. You’re either trolling or misinformed.

Section 109 of the US Copyright Act of 1976 reads: “
the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. That phrase has been interpreted to include lending. It is absolutely legal to lend someone a CD, DVD, or physical book that you have legally purchased. *Reproduction* without permission is a breach of copyright. Lending is not.

panner

Cherry picking always tends to be misleading. Doesn’t section 117 make it illegal to transfer any copies of a computer program “eBook” without the authorization of the copyright owner?

With only section 106 of the Copyright laws to protect an author’s rights and sections 107 to 122 dedicated to circumventing those rights — is it any wonder some people feel a legal obligation to vilify any author’s attempt to protect themselves.

Giving a reader the right to cheat an author “may” be legal but it certainly isn’t moral and such behavior will tend to slow down the distribution of new publications. I personally don’t believe authors are against “lending” per se — their just deathly afraid of piracy and P2P distribution.When that happens — everyone loses.

What both authors and readers really need are online publishing venues with simple, easy to use security measures that protect author rights and don’t inconvenience the reading public. For example, our HYPrLock technology has one time activation — so readers only need to register their email address on line once to get full unlimited access — without logins.

I do apologize for the plug — but I wanted to show there was a responsible security system available that was simple, easy to use and didn’t irritate readers every time they wanted to read an eBook.

Joel Hruska

I’m responding to your allegation that sharing a physical book is a violation of copyright law. That’s clearly, unambiguously, what you wrote.

It is not. You were wrong. You can hold forth on the morality of physical book lending all you want, but that will not make your FUD on the legality issue one iota more correct.

You continue to spread FUD when you describe 107 – 122 as circumventing author rights. These paragraphs establish fair use, the right of libraries to exist, and carve exemptions necessary for teaching and secondary transmission.

Your statements are ridiculous. They imply that authors are (or should be) against free use, physical libraries, teaching materials, and *juke boxes* for God’s sake. Not that you see many books on record these days.

Authors are deathly afraid of P2P and piracy. But this wasn’t either. It wasn’t even close to either.

“What both authors and readers really need are online publishing venues with simple, easy to use security measures that protect author rights and don’t inconvenience the reading public.”

They have one. Books can be loaned out via Kindle *once.* And the buyer can’t read the book while the lendee has it. That’s as close to a physically limited system as you’ll ever get.

Readers only need to register their email address on line once to get full unlimited access — without logins

What happens if that address is deleted, the activation servers shut down, or I change devices? I googled your suggestion — here’s what Simon & Schuster say:

I can’t print ebooks. I can’t copy them. I can’t share them or lend them. I can’t return them, order more than one at a time, or cancel an order.

Yes, clearly this respects *my* rights.

panner

What happens if that address is deleted (shouldn’t matter), the activation servers shut down (shouldn’t matter) , or I change devices? (reactivate the eBook on the new device)

I can’t print ebooks. I can’t copy them. I can’t share them or lend them (these access features open an eBook to piracy). I can’t return them (why not), order more than one at a time (why not), or cancel an order (why not). Most payment systems (i.e. PayPal insists on a 60 refund period). However do not be surprised by refund disabling protection.

I’m sure that most authors would agree with fair use, libraries and educational privileges, However when I distribute an eBook I want to ensure that only the buyer can read it. Printing, copying, sharing, and lending — open the content to piracy (because security must be lowered to provide those features).

It only takes one pirate to open an eBook to P2P distribution and my potential income stream is lost forever. It’s my lively hood I’m most concerned with and I care FUD about “reader” rights.

I guess you could say there two points of view on this topic and, as an author, I’m dead set against anyone who says I don’t have a right to protect my interests — and you, as a reader, have the right buy someone else’s book.

Joel Hruska

My comments on what can’t be done are drawn from Simon and Schuster’s web page. Printing, lending, sharing, and returns are all disabled according to their pages.

Ty Smith

So you are against the public library system?

panner

Not at all. I love public library systems and use them quite frequently. I would even donate free content — but only if my material could be protected against piracy.

Ty Smith

So you are just against privet individual lending books they own to other individuals because this is what this is all about…NOT PIRACY. Please explain to me how this is diffent from a library. Does the library “buy” some sort of “special” book to lend?

panner

In principle, I’m not against “readers” rights or printing, copying, sharing or lending on moral grounds but these features open an ebook to hacking, piracy and P2P distribution.

Jon Colt

Proposed: New Acronym for Authors…RYFC!…(Read Your F*@&ing Contract!)

Mike Stanley

Has anyone posted a list of the “Authors” involved? I’d like to know who’s books to avoid purchasing.

Stephen L. Wilson

raynfall.com/577/an-update-to-the-lendink-author-list

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Email

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our
Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time.